Share this story

Welcome to Edition 2.29 of the Rocket Report! This week saw SpaceX complete a critical in-flight abort test that clears a major hurdle for the company as it seeks to launch astronauts into orbit this year. We also have not one, but two stories about launch companies in New Zealand. Way to go, Kiwis!

As always, we welcome reader submissions, and if you don't want to miss an issue, please subscribe using the box below (the form will not appear on AMP-enabled versions of the site). Each report will include information on small-, medium-, and heavy-lift rockets as well as a quick look ahead at the next three launches on the calendar.

No one hurt in Firefly "anomaly" during test. On Wednesday evening, at Firefly Aerospace's test site about an hour north of Austin in Central Texas, some sort of incident occurred, Ars reports. "During testing this evening we experienced a test anomaly resulting in a small fire on our test stand," the company said in a statement. Firefly is working to complete a first-stage test-firing ahead of an anticipated April launch at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

Normal rocket-testing stuff ... Company chief executive Tom Markusic downplayed the incident. He told a local television reporter that it "resulted from fuel coming out of one of the engines that created a small fire. When a rocket starts up, it sounds like an explosion. It's very powerful, there's fire that comes out of the rocket engine, so there's noise. It was not an explosion. It was just very normal rocket testing stuff." There was no immediate word on whether the anomaly will set Firefly's schedule back.

Stratolaunch focused on launch and hypersonics. The back-from-the-dead, Washington-based company has undergone a hiring spree in recent months, with its employee count growing from 13 to 87. It also has new owners and a new vision—according to SpaceNews, the company says it remains interested in providing launch services as well as now supporting hypersonic vehicles.

That's pretty fast ... "Stratolaunch is exploring the development of aerospace vehicles and technologies, including the need for reliable, routine access to space," Stratolaunch spokesperson Art Pettigrue told the publication. "This exploration includes the need to significantly advance the nation's ability to design and operate hypersonic vehicles." Stratolaunch appears to be considering two hypersonic approaches: one, called Hyper-A, would be capable of reaching speeds of Mach 6, while the larger Hyper-Z vehicle would fly to Mach 10. Both vehicles would be rocket-powered and released from Stratolaunch's aircraft. (submitted by Unrulycow and Ken the Bin)

The Rocket Report: An Ars newsletter

The easiest way to keep up with Eric Berger's space reporting is to sign up for his newsletter, we'll collect his stories in your inbox.

Boeing exits DARPA's space plane program. The Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency said Wednesday that Boeing is dropping out of its Experimental Spaceplane Program immediately. The decision grounds the XS-1 Phantom Express even though technical tests had shown the hypersonic space plane concept was feasible, GeekWire reports. The program was aimed at developing a launch system for military and commercial applications that have aircraft-like operability.

Not profitable? ... "We will now redirect our investment from XSP to other Boeing programs that span the sea, air, and space domains," Boeing said in a statement. DARPA initiated the space plane development program in 2013 and chose Boeing over Northrop Grumman and Masten Space Systems to become the lead contractor for Phases II and III in 2017. The public-private effort stood to receive as much as $146 million in support from DARPA. It seems plausible that Boeing realized development of the XS-1 may cost more than DARPA was willing to invest. (submitted by Ken the Bin)

An NRO mission is next up for Rocket Lab. The self-styled "global leader in small-satellite launch" announced today it will launch a dedicated mission for the US National Reconnaissance Office for its next mission. The launch window for what the company is calling "Birds of a Feather" will open on January 31 and will lift off from Rocket Lab Launch Complex 1. It will be the NRO's first dedicated launch from foreign soil.

Big doings for smallsat ... According to the company, the NRO competitively awarded the contract under the Rapid Acquisition of a Small Rocket program, which allows the government spy agency to explore new launch opportunities that can provide a streamlined commercial approach for getting small satellites into space. It's a sign that smallsat-launch companies may play an increasingly important role in national security launches as governments move away from large, geostationary spacecraft. (submitted by Ken the Bin and platykurtic)

Another New Zealand launch company? Dawn Aerospace, based on New Zealand's South Island, is talking up a concept that involves an uncrewed rocket-propelled space plane, Radio New Zealand reports. The basic concept involves the space plane flying up to about 100km, before releasing a small two-stage rocket to send a few hundred kilograms of payload into orbit.

A long ways to go ... Last week, the company signed a memorandum with the Waitaki District Council that will allow the company to begin test launches from Oamaru Airport later in 2020. However, Dawn Aerospace General Manager James Powell said it likely would be at least four years before the company could begin commercial service. We wish the company well but expect it will face some steep technology hurdles. (submitted by dbayly and Unrulycow)

SpaceX completes in-flight abort test. On Sunday, the Falcon 9 rocket launched its Crew Dragon spacecraft. Shortly after liftoff, the company shut down the main engines of its Falcon 9 rocket and fired off the system that's meant to return the crewed capsule safely to Earth. The Dragon capsule then accelerated away from its Falcon 9 launch vehicle, oriented properly, deployed parachutes, and splashed down successfully, Ars reports.

All went well ... NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine called the test "another amazing milestone." Bridenstine went on to say that the abort was smoother than expected in terms of the forces registered, which gives NASA even more confidence in the hardware. Although a few hardware tests remain, including a few more tests of Dragon's parachute systems, this flight brings SpaceX closer to a launch of Dragon with NASA astronauts later this spring or during the summer.

Solar Orbiter launch date at risk. United Launch Alliance moved its Atlas 5 rocket off a Florida launch pad Wednesday for inspections after a cooling duct unexpectedly disconnected. The problem came before a planned wet dress rehearsal to prepare for liftoff next month with the joint US-European Solar Orbiter mission, Spaceflight Now reports.

Maybe a weather issue ... The roll back to the Vertical Integration Facility at Cape Canaveral's Complex 41 launch pad could delay Solar Orbiter's liftoff, which was scheduled for February 5. Officials are not sure why the umbilical duct on the launch pad disconnected Wednesday, but brisk winds on Florida's Space Coast could be the culprit. Tory Bruno, ULA's CEO, said on Twitter that engineers want to be sure the problem was not caused by something else.

Ariane 5 kicks off 2020 with a successful launch. On January 16, the Ariane 5 rocket launched from Kourou, French Guiana, and successfully put two communications satellites with a combined mass of nearly eight tons into geostationary orbit.

A big year ahead ... It was a good start to 2020, in which Arianespace seeks to launch a record number of Ariane, Soyuz, and Vega rockets from spaceports in South America and Russia. "As we enter the year of our 40th anniversary, Arianespace is targeting a record pace in 2020. It begins with this initial success of Ariane 5 at the service of two long-standing customers and partners," Arianespace Chief Executive Officer Stéphane Israël said after declaring mission success.

Long March 5B to debut in first half of 2020. China's human spaceflight agency said its version of the Long March 5 rocket optimized for delivering payloads to low Earth orbit will fly for the first time before July. The initial flight rocket has passed all of its tests before leaving the factory, Xinhua reports.

Next step, launching a space station ... China has not revealed full technical details about the rocket but says it will be used to launch elements of its modular low-Earth orbit space station. The country aims to complete construction of the 66-ton facility as early as 2022.

NASA sole-source document reveals SLS details. NASA is presently negotiating with Boeing over the procurement of core stages number three through 12 for the Space Launch System rocket, and NASASpaceflight.com has reviewed a formal justification for the award that provides insight into the contract. For example, Boeing estimates it will take about three years to build a single core stage.

Three at a time ... The sole-source justification document notes that there would typically be three units being processed at Michoud Assembly Facility in Louisiana, simultaneously, in different phases of production. Each core stage takes 16 months to procure and receive long-lead materials and another 36 months to manufacture, test, and deliver to the Kennedy Space Center.

Can anyone explain the practicalities of hypersonics? DARPA seems to have been trying it for ages without success, then the Russians waltz in and announce it's in service (element of trust / belief there, but still) and now a private company thinks it can do it?

How hard is it? Is it a case of previously hard technologies starting to mature making it practical for a number of organisations?

Can anyone explain the practicalities of hypersonics? DARPA seems to have been trying it for ages without success, then the Russians waltz in and announce it's in service (element of trust / belief there, but still) and now a private company thinks it can do it?

How hard is it? Is it a case of previously hard technologies starting to mature making it practical for a number of organisations?

its more that they want to have a rocket launched on Stratolaunch act in leu of a hypersonic wind tunnel

Absolutely. Those engines are exquisite in their design and to use them as on a once-only affair is an outrage. SLS is a bloody shameful affair. I truly hope that SpaceX continues to show Boeing up for what they are: old-skool space, slow, expensive, profligate and delivering bugger all bangs-per-buck.

Can anyone explain the practicalities of hypersonics? DARPA seems to have been trying it for ages without success, then the Russians waltz in and announce it's in service (element of trust / belief there, but still) and now a private company thinks it can do it?

How hard is it? Is it a case of previously hard technologies starting to mature making it practical for a number of organisations?

The problem is 'hypersonics' just means 'something that goes above mach 5', so there are a bunch of different technologies under that label. What the DoD are trying to work on now is powered hypersonic flight, whereas Avangard (and Chinese systems like DF-FZ) are boost-glide systems that merely have some capability to manouver and get extra lift at hypersonic speeds.

Oh, probably worth mentioning that the CZ-5B test flight also includes a prototype version of the new crew spacecraft (see images here).

This is the ~20 ton BLEO version, and is testing entry from 8,000km to simulate entry from cislunar space. It's going inside the test fairing for the station so has no LES fitted, but would usually be exposed with a tower LES. It's unclear when this thing is meant to go into operation, or exactly how functional the prototype is.

I've only been interested in space for a relatively short time, meaning I'm really used to SpaceX's rate of progress in the last few years. Seeing that it'll take 16 months to just procure everything, with 3 years to fully complete it, the SLS seems just too... glacial. I mean they're going through test bulkheads every other week in Boca Chica.

Can anyone explain the practicalities of hypersonics? DARPA seems to have been trying it for ages without success, then the Russians waltz in and announce it's in service (element of trust / belief there, but still) and now a private company thinks it can do it?

How hard is it? Is it a case of previously hard technologies starting to mature making it practical for a number of organisations?

The problem is 'hypersonics' just means 'something that goes above mach 5', so there are a bunch of different technologies under that label. What the DoD are trying to work on now is powered hypersonic flight, whereas Avangard (and Chinese systems like DF-FZ) are boost-glide systems that merely have some capability to manouver and get extra lift at hypersonic speeds.

Oh, probably worth mentioning that the CZ-5B test flight also includes a prototype version of the new crew spacecraft (see images here).

This is the ~20 ton BLEO version, and is testing entry from 8,000km to simulate entry from cislunar space. It's going inside the test fairing for the station so has no LES fitted, but would usually be exposed with a tower LES. It's unclear when this thing is meant to go into operation, or exactly how functional the prototype is.

i wonder how they are doing a leo optimized version without changing the core to something higher thrust? or are they changing it.

Oh, probably worth mentioning that the CZ-5B test flight also includes a prototype version of the new crew spacecraft (see images here).

This is the ~20 ton BLEO version, and is testing entry from 8,000km to simulate entry from cislunar space. It's going inside the test fairing for the station so has no LES fitted, but would usually be exposed with a tower LES. It's unclear when this thing is meant to go into operation, or exactly how functional the prototype is.

i wonder how they are doing a leo optimized version without changing the core to something higher thrust? or are they changing it.

LEO version is just same capsule with much smaller service module. Should be 13 or 14 tons, small enough to fit on CZ-7.

EDIT: oh i misread this, sorry. The LEO version of CZ-5 is just a normal CZ-5 with the hydrolox upper stage removed (i.e. now core and boosters only) and a bigger fairing. AIUI the fairing is mostly what they're worried about.

I've only been interested in space for a relatively short time, meaning I'm really used to SpaceX's rate of progress in the last few years. Seeing that it'll take 16 months to just procure everything, with 3 years to fully complete it, the SLS seems just too... glacial. I mean they're going through test bulkheads every other week in Boca Chica.

Long build and lead time is the easiest way to balloon overhead other than lots of sub contractors, with SLS that is the goal

Dropping XS-1 Phantom Express development was probably a tough decision for Boeing to make, and almost certainly deflated their collective corporate ego more than a touch. Without the benefit of any particularly deep insights to Boeing, this move strikes me as perhaps the best publicly announced decision that I've seen them make in quite some time now. Some adults beginning to attend the more critical meetings, perchance?

(Because I know that DARPA ≠ USAF or NASA in terms of contract revenues, but you've got to believe they were working diligently on how to turn the XS-1 into a tasty cost-plus Cash Cow Profit Porker. So yeah, a bitter pill.)

Oh, probably worth mentioning that the CZ-5B test flight also includes a prototype version of the new crew spacecraft (see images here).

This is the ~20 ton BLEO version, and is testing entry from 8,000km to simulate entry from cislunar space. It's going inside the test fairing for the station so has no LES fitted, but would usually be exposed with a tower LES. It's unclear when this thing is meant to go into operation, or exactly how functional the prototype is.

i wonder how they are doing a leo optimized version without changing the core to something higher thrust? or are they changing it.

The LEO version drops the upper stage. The CZ-5 stages very high almost into orbit and uses the upper stage as a departure engine. So if you drop that (which is quite massive) you can now lift heavy payloads to LEO.

In both version it is a core sustainer design which a few decades of trying has shown to be a "meh" concept. It at least uses liquid fueled boosters and doesn't fall into the solid rocket trap.

The Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency said Wednesday that Boeing is dropping out of its Experimental Spaceplane Program immediately.... It seems plausible that Boeing realized development of the XS-1 may cost more than DARPA was willing to invest.

Which explains why NASA bumped Boeing's "fixed price" CCP contract with extra cash and will probably not require them to refly OFT.

Boeing and its old space buddies always reminds me of this scene in Good Fellas.

I've only been interested in space for a relatively short time, meaning I'm really used to SpaceX's rate of progress in the last few years. Seeing that it'll take 16 months to just procure everything, with 3 years to fully complete it, the SLS seems just too... glacial. I mean they're going through test bulkheads every other week in Boca Chica.

SpaceX is doing SS development with its own money. Therefore there is incentive to complete R&D quickly and efficiently to arrive at an effective functional launcher that can then start generating revenue to start paying back the money SpaceX invested in it.

Boeing is doing SLS development with taxpayer money under a cost plus contract which pays them a profit based on a percentage of costs incurred. It is in their interest to work as slowly and inefficiently as they can get away with. Unfortunately NASA has inexplicably been scoring them top marks and giving them maximum performance bonuses on top so it appears they can get away with almost anything.

I've only been interested in space for a relatively short time, meaning I'm really used to SpaceX's rate of progress in the last few years. Seeing that it'll take 16 months to just procure everything, with 3 years to fully complete it, the SLS seems just too... glacial. I mean they're going through test bulkheads every other week in Boca Chica.

SLS is a jobs program-The Never Ending Project To Build The Rocket To Nowhere. The senior senator from Alabama is chairman of the committee that funds NASA. And where is this rocket built? Cha-ching!

Oh, probably worth mentioning that the CZ-5B test flight also includes a prototype version of the new crew spacecraft (see images here).

This is the ~20 ton BLEO version, and is testing entry from 8,000km to simulate entry from cislunar space. It's going inside the test fairing for the station so has no LES fitted, but would usually be exposed with a tower LES. It's unclear when this thing is meant to go into operation, or exactly how functional the prototype is.

i wonder how they are doing a leo optimized version without changing the core to something higher thrust? or are they changing it.

The LEO version drops the upper stage. The CZ-5 stages very high almost into orbit and uses the upper stage as a departure engine. So if you drop that (which is quite massive) you can now lift heavy payloads to LEO.

In both version it is a core sustainer design which a few decades of trying has shown to be a "meh" concept. It at least uses liquid fueled boosters and doesn't fall into the solid rocket trap.

more "at least the boosters see use elsewhere" some of the rockets they are used on do have SRBs If the core engine air starts it'd be like the current iteration of GSLV with cryogenics instead of solids and hypergols I am guessing it doesnt and its more of a conventional Stage and a half as that wouldnt help with LEO, it is however so much easier to start with a high LEO base and add ontop of or change the upper for higher energy orbits, once you are in orbit you dont have to have has much thrust and you can design additional stages for isp or low burnout mass focus.

Huh, I thought SpaceX had completed all the required parachute tests. Was their an explanation for why they need to do more?

After changing their parachutes to a new material they needed to re-do all the qualification tests and obviously aren't through with all of them.

I believe the reporting is that NASA wanted at least two additional tests with fresh from the factory parachutes. Most of the testing that SpaceX was doing was with reused test Mk 3 parachutes and NASA wanted some testing done with completely unused Mk 3 parachutes to see if there was any difference between new and used performance.

During the parachute tests; are the parachutes reusable?I know that personal ‘chutes are reusable, but on this scale, is there too much chance of damage from the landscape after touching down?

Yes. In fact almost all the testing has been done with reused chutes, thus the reason NASA wants two additional tests with brand spanking new chutes. They want to see if there is any differences in parachute performance between new and used chutes.

Can anyone explain the practicalities of hypersonics? DARPA seems to have been trying it for ages without success, then the Russians waltz in and announce it's in service (element of trust / belief there, but still) and now a private company thinks it can do it?

How hard is it? Is it a case of previously hard technologies starting to mature making it practical for a number of organisations?

Building a hypersonic vehicle isn't particularly tough. We've been doing it since the 60s. We've fielded weapons that operated in that regime for about as long. Building an airbreathing hypersonic vehicle is extremely tough. You're at the point where you the normal shock on a ramjet or turbojet is too wasteful, and you need to be a scramjet, and scramjets are extremely tough. Also, the Russian hypersonic Zircon is having completely expected developmental issues, and it not yet operational.

Huh, I thought SpaceX had completed all the required parachute tests. Was their an explanation for why they need to do more?

After changing their parachutes to a new material they needed to re-do all the qualification tests and obviously aren't through with all of them.

I believe the reporting is that NASA wanted at least two additional tests with fresh from the factory parachutes. Most of the testing that SpaceX was doing was with reused test Mk 3 parachutes and NASA wanted some testing done with completely unused Mk 3 parachutes to see if there was any difference between new and used performance.

Sounds really strange, but that's NASA for you...

NASA: "Ok, those tests with your re-used chutes worked fine, but since you'll have to use new parachutes in real missions you'll have to repeat these tests now with new parachutes."

Can anyone explain the practicalities of hypersonics? DARPA seems to have been trying it for ages without success, then the Russians waltz in and announce it's in service (element of trust / belief there, but still) and now a private company thinks it can do it?

How hard is it? Is it a case of previously hard technologies starting to mature making it practical for a number of organisations?

Building a hypersonic vehicle isn't particularly tough. We've been doing it since the 60s. We've fielded weapons that operated in that regime for about as long. Building an airbreathing hypersonic vehicle is extremely tough. You're at the point where you the normal shock on a ramjet or turbojet is too wasteful, and you need to be a scramjet, and scramjets are extremely tough. Also, the Russian hypersonic Zircon is having completely expected developmental issues, and it not yet operational.

One of the reasons why Reaction Engines Limited's SABRE has attracted so much interest recently from traditional MIC one of the few air breathing engines designed not only to work in that regime but be decent getting there, however I am not sure airbreathing is as much of a concern as sustained flight with the ability to course correct in the mach 5+ regime

One of the reasons why Reaction Engines Limited's SABRE has attracted so much interest recently from traditional MIC one of the few air breathing engines designed not only to work in that regime but be decent getting there, however I am not sure airbreathing is as much of a concern as sustained flight with the ability to course correct in the mach 5+ regime

This made me think why no one uses a classical air breathing 0th stage of jet engines pushing vertically? I guess it should be infeasible for some obvious reasons which I can't grasp. I'm interested in figuring it out.